Re: split-window-preferred-function

["grischka" <grishka@gmx.de>]

> >>>> I still think this is wrong: the choice should be based on
> >>>> split-window-preferred-aspect-ratio.
> >> 
> >>> I cannot imagine how that would work.  Especially what would prevent
> >>> splitting to create windows which are too narrow?
> >> 
> >> The height and width thresholds would, of course.
>
> > Ah, ok.  I've thought split-window-preferred-aspect-ratio would obsolete
> > those two.  So now I agree with you.
>
> No, of course it can't replace them.  Also I originally thought
> aspect-ratio wouldn't be needed, we could just use (/ height-threshold
> weight-threshold), but that wouldn't work: I much prefer tall windows,
> but would prefer to use a height threshold smaller than 80.

I don't think that tuning the split-window concept will bring you 
any further. Such function is simply too low-level than that it 
could do what you want, that is to create new layout on-the-fly. 

Now you throw some options "min/max/preferred/threshold/ratio" at 
the user, then if yet it doesn't work at least can be customized 
how it doesn't.

But humans are bad in calculating inter-dependencies of dozens of 
options, while understand dependencies of geometry and content 
immediately. Whereas code knows very well about flags and states, 
but has no idea how to calculate quality in layout.

So why don't you let the user define the layout and make the code 
fill in the options. Where LAYOUT means what (class of) content 
shall be shown in what place, and OPTIONS for instance can mean 
what do do with space where the content is currently not available.

Have a look at elscreen.  Or think about html div tags, they define 
layout that only applies if there is content. 

--- grischka